The Wealthy Should Prepare to Be Soaked

Much of the US government remains in shutdown as I write this, including the IRS.

That might sound like a good thing… unless you’re hoping for a tax refund anytime soon.

Fortunately, the White House found a solution: redefine the IRS workers who process refunds as “essential” and order them back to work, although without pay, for now. I’m sure they are thrilled.

Taxes are a touchy subject. Nobody likes paying them, but (unless you’re an anarchist) we all realize at least some taxation is necessary. We just want it to be fair and reasonable. Exactly what that means is a never-ending debate.

A newly elected member of Congress stoked up the debate this month. She may have opened a box some folks would like to keep closed.

Photo: AP

Flipping Out

This time last year, 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a Bronx bartender. Now she is Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and has a lot of ideas. She’s concerned about climate change and wants to attack it with a plan she calls the “Green New Deal.”

To pay for the Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez proposes raising the tax rate on income over $10 million to 70%, yes, 70%. That’s far more than even the wealthiest Americans pay now.

As you might expect, some people flipped out. Here’s a tweet by House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA).

Republicans: Let Americans keep more of their own hard-earned money
Democrats: Take away 70% of your income and give it to leftist fantasy programs https://t.co/NxJPSCqvrt

Assorted commentators said “AOC” Ocasio-Cortez obviously doesn’t understand how all this works. Maybe so, but Rep. Scalise obviously doesn’t either, and he’s been in Congress much longer.

Here’s his mistake: A 70% top marginal rate doesn’t take away “70% of your income.”

In this proposal, it would take away 70% of your taxable income above $10 million per year.

In other words, if you make $10 million or less—which describes almost everyone—AOC’s proposal wouldn’t change your taxes at all. That’s because we have a graduated tax system. The rates look like this (for an unmarried taxpayer).

The rates rise as income rises, but don’t apply retroactively to income below each bracket. So if you make exactly $10 million in taxable income, your tax would be $3.67 million under the Ocasio-Cortez proposal, the same as it is now.

At $11 million, you would pay another $700,000 in taxes (70% of the additional million), making your total liability $4.37 million. Your effective tax rate, averaged across all your income, would be 39.7%, not 70%.

In fact, what Scalise said in his tweet is impossible. Mathematicians call it an “asymptote.” The effective rate can never be 70% as long as that first $10 million is taxed at lower rates. No one would have 70% of their income taken away, even if AOC gets what she wants.

It could get close at high income levels, though. At a $3.3 billion income, the effective rate would be 69.95%. So Rep. Scalise is correctly concerned for the handful of Americans who make that much.

Taxing the 0.05%

Having cleared that up, let’s get to the bigger point. Is a new 70% tax rate on high incomes a good idea?

Well, it would raise some money, but nowhere near enough to pay for all the programs Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives want. A Washington Postanalysis estimated it would bring in an additional $72 billion yearly.

The reason is very few Americans make more than $10 million yearly—only about 16,000 did so in 2016, according to the latest available data. That’s not the fabled 1% upper class. It is the far more exclusive top 0.05%.

To collect really big money, such a tax would need to apply more broadly. Raising theat top rate from 37% to 57% for the top 1% of taxpayers would yield about $170 billion per year, calculates former Treasury economist Ernie Tedeschi.

Even 57% would be a huge increase from present levels, but it’s not unprecedented. According to data from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, the top bracket was 70% or more from 1936 to 1980, and usually applied to income well below $10 million. The economy survived and sometimes even thrived in those years.

Even today, people in parts of Europe pay much more than Americans do. Most don’t seem to mind.

I think the deeper problem is not the amount of taxes. It’s that people think the system isn’t fair, or the government doesn’t provide useful services.

That’s not entirely wrong but fixing it will take more than higher rates. But I’ll bet AOC learns that quickly.

A Problem for All

For now, this idea will go nowhere. There is no way the Republican Senate or President Trump will agree to anything remotely like Ocasio-Cortez envisions.

However…

If you’re a wealthy person who thinks your taxes are too high, you ought to be concerned. By saying these things out loud, AOC put a ball in motion that some Democratic presidential candidates will pick up in the 2020 campaign.

Further, she’s proving adept at communicating with young voters. Raising their turnout could make a big difference in the next elections. And if Democrats keep the House, take the Senate, and put one of their own in the White House, higher taxes are all but certain.

Now, people who make $10 million or more are generally pretty smart—or they at least have good tax advisors. They’ll see this coming and get ready for it.

Therein lies a problem for everyone.

If wealthy taxpayers start trying to capture open gains in their stocks, real estate, and other assets before tax rates rise, it will put downward pressure on those asset prices, which in some cases are already wobbly.

I’m not saying this will set off a crash. But if the perception grows that tax rates will soon increase sharply, more people will try to sell, and prices will soften.

At some point, there may be a rush for the exits. You want to be out before then.

Senior Economic Analyst Patrick Watson is a master in connecting the dots and finding out where budding trends are leading. Patrick has partnered with John Mauldin as the co-editor of Mauldin Economics’ premium research service, Over My Shoulder. Together, they curate research and analysis from the world’s finest thinkers, and deliver it to subscribers 3–4 times per week. You can also follow him on Twitter (@PatrickW) to see his commentary on current events.

Discuss This

Comments

Ken Keylor

Interesting but not daring. You should be bold and talk about the sensible spending reforms that are needed to trim social security and medicare. Go ahead, I dare you.

Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact service@mauldineconomics.com.

Disclaimers

The Mauldin Economics website, Thoughts from the Frontline, The Weekly Profit, The 10th Man, Connecting the Dots, Transformational Technology Digest, Over My Shoulder, Yield Shark, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, In the Money, and Mauldin Economics VIP are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to http://affiliates.ggcpublishing.com/. Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.